southtownstar
SHARP 
Weather Updates

Forum: Focus on message, not messenger

Updated: December 2, 2012 2:19PM



During the last several months, three Midwest candidates campaigning for Congress and the U.S. Senate have stirred controversy by explaining their pro-life views in situations of rape and incest.

While these candidates may have fumbled in their attempts to articulate their pro-life positions and while many of us may have winced when hearing their clumsy explanations, pro-life advocates agree that all human life begins at conception and should be legally protected. This truth about human life doesn’t change because of the terrible circumstances under which a small percentage of babies are conceived.

Pro-life candidates who oppose rape exceptions are to be applauded for their courage, honesty and moral consistency. Not only are they willing to take unfair criticism from abortion rights groups, but as we are seeing this election cycle, they also have to deal with heavy media coverage that typically does not understand the implications of the belief that life begins at conception.

The pro-life position is simply this: We believe that an innocent unborn child doesn’t deserve a death sentence because of the crime of his/her father. Kudos to every candidate who is willing to be consistent in standing for the sanctity of life.

David E. Smith

Executive director, Illinois Family Institute

Carol Stream

Drew didn’t deserve courtesy

The SouthtownStar’s Oct. 21 editorial (“No special break for Peterson”) was spot on regarding Drew Peterson being allowed to leave jail to attend his mother’s wake.

Some criminals are allowed to attend family members’ funerals or wakes, but someone like Peterson, convicted of killing one wife and the main suspect in another’s disappearance, should not have been allowed to do so.

The fact that the Will County state’s attorney was not aware of this action and strongly opposed it raises the question of why county jail officials permitted it — treating Peterson as a celebrity rather than a likely double murderer.

It is instances such as these, that cause me to really question the integrity of our legal system, especially in Illinois.

Ryann O’Mara

Palos Heights

Amendment proposal a joke

A Nov. 6 referendum on a proposed state constitutional amendment (Amendment 49), which would require a three-fifths majority to increase public employee pensions, is nothing but a brazen attempt to shield state lawmakers from the blame they so richly deserve for the ongoing pension crisis.

Their utter disregard for their responsibilities borders on criminal malfeasance.

Every legislator who has kicked this problem down the road should be held responsible on Election Day.

Bob Hall

Chicago



© 2014 Sun-Times Media, LLC. All rights reserved. This material may not be copied or distributed without permission. For more information about reprints and permissions, visit www.suntimesreprints.com. To order a reprint of this article, click here.